> There is a near-0% chance that this is the case, because this is illegal (to say nothing of unethical). Outside of a +1 tiebreaker when all else is equal betw

> There is a near-0% chance that this is the case, because this is illegal (to say nothing of unethical). Outside of a +1 tiebreaker when all else is equal between two candidates, no HR/Legal team worth their salt would ever create or promote such practice. I see. I suspect many are taking that improbability as a given, and because it's so seemingly obvious, they don't feel the need to point it out. On the other hand, many others don't take it as granted that people (or worse, organizations) will follow the law and/or generally do the right thing. For example, assault and murder are illegal, which, if the law were to be followed, should prevent gun violence, and yet many want to tighten access to guns. Additionally, people often (in absolute terms, if not relative) do accidentally discharge guns -- whether out of momentary carelessness or general incompetence -- and in such cases homicide laws are of little utility (laws generally work by dissuading conscious intent, rather than making people hyper alert to precarious scenarios). Fraud is illegal, and yet we had the big Enron scandal in the early 2000s, which then led to yet more legislature (Sarbanes–Oxley). Sexual assault is a thing, and I certainly wouldn't dismiss any accusation as unlikely just because it's unethical and illegal. I can see the sense in suspecting the odds of such discrimination is low, but I personally feel (as I suspect many others do) that the odds aren't negligible. Laws are broken all the time -- sometimes that's because the perpetrator thinks they're being righteous, sometimes because they're unaware, and sometimes because they see personal gain in breaking the law. > I think that's easiest to say when you're a majority group member, because your group feels "default" of sorts. There's research behind this, but it's not my area of expertise. When you're a part of a smaller group, one that has a history of being treated negatively based on observable (vs. internal) characteristics, it's quite a bit different. I can see that my own privilege might shape my perceptions in this regard -- thanks for pointing that out.